Born from the Tories' internal struggle over the EU, the right-wing group of MEPs founded by David Cameron faces relegation to the fringes of the European Parliament after Brexit.

But the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) have a cunning plan.

Instead of giving up the ghost when their 19 Conservative MEPs head back over the Channel in a year's time, the ECR will attempt to rebrand as a home for Euro-critical lawmakers who shun the methods of the far right.

For a group that will be relegated in one fell swoop from the third biggest political family in the Parliament to the fifth slot, with 52 seats, that's quite an ambition. Especially since the group is currently too populist for the taste of some moderate conservatives.

Loosely bound by their belief in open markets, lower taxes, family values, the transatlantic alliance and reform of the EU, the ECR's 18 national delegations range from mainstream forces like the Tories to Belgium's largest party, the New Flemish Alliance (N-VA), and the anti-immigrant Finns party.

“Today, you have Euro-federalists on one hand and Le Pen and Wilders on the other. There is a need for some common sense voice" — Jan Zahradil, Czech member of the ECR

The Tory MEPs Richard Ashworth and Julie Girling, left the group a fortnight ago. Girling argued that as a moderate Conservative who campaigned for Remain in the 2016 referendum on EU membership, she didn't feel comfortable in the ECR. She and Ashworth have joined the European People's Party, home to mainstream center-right forces like Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats.

"We do not belong in a far-right, populist, nationalist party," Girling told Euractiv. She and Ashworth had the Tory party whip removed last year for their anti-Brexit stance. News they were leaving the ECR met a standing ovation from colleagues eager to show them the door, according to MEPs present at the meeting.

To avoid becoming an irrelevant hodge-podge of anti-EU voices after Brexit, some members of the group hope to transform it into the pre-eminent Euro-critical voice in the Parliament after the 2019 election, by attracting people who oppose more power for Brussels while rejecting the approach of extremist parties.

“Today, you have Euro-federalists on one hand and Le Pen and Wilders on the other," said Jan Zahradil, a Czech member of the ECR, referring to France's National Front leader Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders, the leader of the anti-Muslim Dutch Freedom Party. "There is a need for some common sense voice."

Challenging behavior

The recent history of the ECR isn't necessarily overflowing with common sense.

Founded after the European election in 20o9, when then Tory leader Cameron decided to break with the EPP in a sop to the Euroskeptics in his ranks and form a new group, the ECR's image has suffered from internal scandals and the confrontational or extremist behavior of some of its national member parties.

Its second largest member, Poland's ruling Law and Justice party (PiS), is in open warfare with the European Commission (and its domestic arch-enemy Donald Tusk, head of the European Council) over Brussels' criticisms of Polish judicial reforms. That means many ECR lawmakers voted against the Parliament's resolution on triggering Article 7.1 against Poland for breaching EU values.

While ECR lawmakers often vote with the EPP, the Tories' influence means it has broken ranks with mainstream MEPs on Brexit, too: In 2017, the ECR issued its own guidelines on Brexit, saying the Parliament's draft position "undermines the unity of the 27."

In 2014, the ECR admitted new partners like the populist Danish People's Party and the True Finns (which has since changed its name to the Finns) — new recruits who have brought their own problems. Danish People's Party MEP Morten Messerschmidt has been accused of misuse of EU funds. And Jussi Halla-aho of the Finns has a conviction for posting a blog that said Islam "reveres pedophilia."

Finally, PiS MEP Ryszard Czarnecki was removed from his position as Parliament vice president last month after he sparked outrage by comparing a fellow Polish MEP to a Nazi collaborator.

'Little earthquake'

Scandal notwithstanding, some ECR luminaries hope to turn the group into a credible anti-federalist voice untainted by association with fundamentalist Euroskeptics.

“We like the EU but we hate the United States of Europe," said Hans-Olaf Henkel, an MEP and business leader who left the Alternative for Germany (AfD) when its focus strayed from criticism of the euro to far-right populism (the party is no longer in the ECR). "We like the Europe which was designed by Charles de Gaulle: the Europe of nations.”

Jan Zahradil, a Czech member of the ECR, speaks during a parliamentary session in in Strasbourg | European Parliament

Zahradil, the Czech MEP, said he hopes the ECR can also benefit from what he predicts will be a "little earthquake" in the 2019 European election.

In this scenario, the Socialists (the second-largest group of MEPs), humbled in the French, German and Italian elections, would see their votes shrink; two hard-line Euroskeptic forces — Nigel Farage's Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy and the Europe of Nations and Freedom — would contract; and France's Emmanuel Macron would manage to unite pro-European liberals in the Parliament.

This upheaval, Zahradil said, will push Euro-critical parties into the arms of the ECR. Some members eye alliances with parties to the right like Austria's Freedom Party and Hungary’s Fidesz, while Henkel said he has met with Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, whose party Debout la France also advocates a Europe of nations.

Zdzisław Krasnodębski, a Polish member who emphasizes "Christian values" and power for member states, sees potential recruits among “moderate Euro-realistic groups” and even hopes to poach from the EPP.

Mike Ruddy

“the Tories’ influence means it has broken ranks with mainstream MEPs on Brexit, too: In 2017, the ECR issued its own guidelines on Brexit, saying the Parliament’s draft position “undermines the unity of the 27.””

Hardly the tories causing the division. The “Parliaments draft position” was drawn up by the federalist eu parties. Instead of attempting concensus the other parties did not even get to see the proposal until the day of the vote. So who is responsible for the lack of unity?

Posted on 3/15/18 | 8:58 AM CET

Tom Cullem

Nothing leads more surely to totalitarianism than a huge bureaucracy whose primary aim inevitably becomes its own power and survival, and that inevitably becomes less and less in touch with the hundreds of millions it claims to represent.

Smaller is always better. Like the USSR before it, the EU carries within it the seeds of its own destruction. The reformists may not win the battle to restrain federalism and endless expansion, but eventually the war will be won as the structure becomes too heavy to last and collapses in on itself, like a black hole.

Posted on 3/15/18 | 1:52 PM CET

edel .

@Tom Cullem, we hear you but please don’t compare. The EU has an enormous power and it is surprising how small actually is.

Actually the body size is not what we should be concerned about but accountability and results. Countries with more than 50% of GDP spent by Gov are France Finland, Denmark and Greece. Countries with relative low (30% of GDP) are Russia and Switzerland. I don’t see any clear determination.

The US is a good comparison due to similar size and since its States have tons of independence from the federal government too:

– Workforce (aprox.): EU 60,000 USA 800,000 (already discounted military and postal service if not we would be talking of more than 2.5 million)

– % of its budgeted expenditure on staff and administration: EU 6% US 6.5%

As a reference, the EU budget is roughly similar to total budget of public spending of Illinois; $180 Billion.

I am not advocating for a loose budget on the EU, and for sure any increase on budget on EU should come with a even more saving costs for member states. But those sensationalist press claiming the EU is oversized for what it does are completely misleading its readership.

Posted on 3/15/18 | 4:47 PM CET

Mike Ruddy

@edel
You interpret Tom’s comments as being about money yet he talked of power and democracy, not cash.
Look at the eu and examine its democratic credentials and it is not just sadly lacking, its getting worse. The treaties give the president of the eu commission absolute power over it. Every member of it must obey the president and he can remove anyone at will. The treaties also say he is to be selected by the eu council via qmv and then approved or rejected by the eu parliament.
Juncker claims to have been elected and says he has his own mandate. He claims this due to spitzenkandidaten despite the fact that before the eu parliament elections were held no one (including juncker) said it was anything other than an example of a process they hoped would be used in future. Only after the vote did the lies start and juncker and his fellow federalists claim spitzenkandidaten was used and gave him a mandate.
These events were known by anyone who followed the elections including the MEPs. When juncker made his first speech to the eu parliament he used spitzenkandidaten to claim to be the first elected commission president with the right to act as he wished rather than follow instruction from the eu council. The MEPs cheered despite knowing it was a lie. Democracy, Junckers open anti uk bigotry and his fundamental unfitness for any public office were all ignored as this transferred more power to eu institutions.
The eu broke its own treaties, subverted democracy and abandoned its own declared principles solely in the quest for more power. That is a perfect example of what Tom describes.